At what stage does Bloom question the recruitment set up?

[B.W.]

And what happens if the players that the manager wants to recruit are unaffordable, unavailable or do not want to come to the club? Please see Oscar's january list as a good example. There seems to be an assumption by many on here that because a manager chooses a player, we can automatically sign them. It doesn't work like that.

Burke's team does all of the legwork to identify players that are affordable, available and want to come to the club, saving the manager hundreds of hours of time wasting, allowing him to get on with his main job - coaching and managing the squad. The manager will give Burke's team targets and Burke's team gives the manager a list of possibilities and alternatives, some that the manager would not be aware of. They then decide who they want, if any, and Burke's team goes and does all of the negotiating etc.

I really do not see how there is an issue with this setup. Being unable to afford certain players is the crux of the issue for me. Yes, Gus had some pulling power which we may be lacking at the moment, and PB intimated as much last year. But Gus' issue was not with Burke and his team, it was with the budget. He no doubt wanted various expensive players which we could not afford and TB put his foot down. As Bozza says, Oscar appeared to be apathetic towards recruitment and when SH joined he was not heavily involved, but now is.

The issue, as always, is money. Perhaps we are not spending ours wisely enough and we have and will continue to speculate about that for the rest of time, since we can only suppose. The recruitment process, and who does what, is not the issue in my view.

That is the problem. The responsibility of Burke and his team.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

That is the problem. The responsibility of Burke and his team.

Not spending wisely is part of the problem. Not selling wisely is a far bigger part of the problem. IMHO, like

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Burke's team does all of the legwork to identify players that are affordable, available and want to come to the club, saving the manager hundreds of hours of time wasting ...

But is it time wasting if it means getting in players who actually fit the manager's tactics & ethos? The problem seems to be not so much the system we have as the relationship, or lack of, between Burke and the manager - we routinely seem to see players brought in who just don't fit together on the pitch. Individually, they're okay, but how can you spend something like £3.5 million on three strikers and still be desperately deficient up front?

 

[B.W.]

Not spending wisely is part of the problem. Not selling wisely is a far bigger part of the problem. IMHO, like

Just my opinion, but getting the money we've got for the high-quality players we've sold is good business. Let's be honest, we just can't keep hold of our best players if a Prem club comes in for them.

Re-investing only part of the player-sales money unwisely on lower-quality 'replacements' is the main issue. In a nutshell, the problem, for me, is p1ss-poor recruitment.

This key problem, of course, has been exacerbated by appointing an inexperienced manager with the tactical nous of a pile of bricks.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Baldock gets SUCH an easy ride on here.
Saturday, off the top of my head, from the first half alone (minutes are very much guesswork):

02: E.Bennett slips Calderon down the right channel. Calderon whips a superb low cross, right across the six yard line, begging to be finished off. Baldock, in the centre, makes no real effort to get in front of the single defender.

20: Lualua picks the ball up on halfway and drives at the defence, before rolling the ball to Baldock, left of the penalty spot. Baldock could shoot first time, but takes a touch and gets closed out by the two defenders.

25: E.Bennett slips the ball to Baldock, just inside the box, left of centre. Baldock mis-hits a side-foot shot first time, tamely at the keeper.

42: Calderon plays Baldock into the box, right of the goal. Could have taken a quick shot, but choses to take a touch, and the defender forces it out for a corner (which praise the Lord, we score from).

43: (immediately after the goal) J.Bennett picks up the ball just in our half, and drives to the edge of the box, then lays it right to the unmarked Baldock. Baldock declines to shoot first time. Gets closed down, and has to turn away from the goal to keep the move alive.

That's five opportunities in 45 minutes of football - from which he got one shot away. Note I say 'opportunities', rather than 'chances'. Oppourtunities are what you need to work with at this level. If you can only score from tap ins and clear one-on-ones your level is League One, where the defenders are shit.

I've been banging on for weeks about the poor service and lack of support to our mainly lone striker this season. It is bizarre that we adopt a very positive and attacking 'wing back' strategy but our ability to turn possession into converted scoring opportunities has been poor. The contrast between The Albion and some opponents has been so evident that it makes you question whether Sami is watching the same game. I had a lot of sympathy for Baldock etc.

It's also Murphy's law that when we have sent cracking low balls across the 6 yard box (Watford and Rotherham come to mind) our lone striker has been yards away.

The first half on Saturday was a watershed for me. We created a really decent series of chances into space in the penalty area, with Baldock looking more than odds on to get the first touch. At least two should have resulted in shots on target and probably at least one goal, but as you eloquently point out......

Yes Baldock's confidence might have been low but I hoped that his nicely taken goal at Bournemouth would give him a huge boost. Sadly Saturday he showed that he just does not have that lethal instinct that strikers need at this level. I know he isn't the perfect solution but the irony is that CMS might well have taken one (but not all!) of those chances because he has more of a natural strikers instinct to get into dangerous positions.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Not spending wisely is part of the problem. Not selling wisely is a far bigger part of the problem. IMHO, like

Selling isn't an issue if you already have the replacements either in the squad or already lined up. The best people in the transfer market always sell when they receive offers that were more than the player was worth (in their eyes), but then they usually had replacements in place. We don't appear to do that bit.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But is it time wasting if it means getting in players who actually fit the manager's tactics & ethos? The problem seems to be not so much the system we have as the relationship, or lack of, between Burke and the manager - we routinely seem to see players brought in who just don't fit together on the pitch. Individually, they're okay, but how can you spend something like £3.5 million on three strikers and still be desperately deficient up front?

By time wasting I mean that there are other people in the organisation that can do all the legwork. SH may well have given DB a list of players, so DB goes off and investigates them all (I would hazard a guess that getting Tex was a result of this). SH does not need to do that. If we cannot get them for whatever reason, DB will come up with alternatives.

From Bozza's remarks, there appears to be a burgeoning relationship between SH and DB, one that perhaps was not there when SH joined, hence their looking around for alternative striking options now. I don't think there is a lack of a relationship, more a developing one.

 

[glasfryn]

Just my opinion, but getting the money we've got for the high-quality players we've sold is good business. Let's be honest, we just can't keep hold of our best players if a Prem club comes in for them.

Re-investing only part of the player-sales money unwisely on lower-quality 'replacements' is the main issue. In a nutshell, the problem, for me, is p1ss-poor recruitment.

This key problem, of course, has been exacerbated by appointing an inexperienced manager with the tactical nous of a pile of bricks.

and who exactly would you replace him with, people keep pointing towards Pulis, he would last all of a week before he would give them(the upper management) the finger because he cannot have the players he wants.
because most managers worth their salt would want players who will play for the manager and also be players that he (the manager) has indicated that he would want.
where and who in our squad are there any players that Sami has indicated he wants.
2m on Baldock who is a good player who is also a square peg trying to fit into a round hole, bought because he can score goals ..........but not in our system he can't.
this is the trouble when you use people who have never kicked a ball to bring in players, you are right on one score it is p1ss poor recruitment, move that lot sideways, get someone in who knows football, change the assistant manager, temporarily use Mullers until someone younger comes along, use some of the money we have made on selling our best players on a strong young C/F who can bring the forwards we have into play........................if we have to break the bank then so be it ........better that wallowing in div 1

 

[Giraffe]

From Bozza's remarks, there appears to be a burgeoning relationship between SH and DB, one that perhaps was not there when SH joined, hence their looking around for alternative striking options now. I don't think there is a lack of a relationship, more a developing one.

How does he know that? I am pretty sure he is not on speaking terms with Sami and probably not Burke. He may have been told that they are getting on like Romeo and Juliet but that means nothing, what else would anyone at the club say?

Frankly I'll be amazed if Sami is any happier with this set up than his two predecessors were.

And there is another point here, which for me goes to the whole point of the issue. If you personally vet and chose the players you want to sign (old school I know!) then you believe in them, and the player joins knowing that. That is a massive confidence factor for a player. When Gus was here he went to great lengths to find out everything about a player, how he trains, what his mentality was, what his footballing intelligence was, he met him and established an early respect. As a result he knew where that player would fit in to his side, what he was like as a person, whether he would achieve what Gus wanted. In short it was all about him and his vision for how the team was to be set up both on and off the pitch, and it worked.

Contrast that with the current set up. Whilst Sami may have had some input these different attributes are now being assessed by different people, with Burke leading on this. This can only work well if the manager is working very closely with them. This clearly wasn't happening in August, but we are told by some may be now? If so that can only be a good thing in my view but I fear that the structure is still wrong.

 

[B.W.]

and who exactly would you replace him with, people keep pointing towards Pulis, he would last all of a week before he would give them(the upper management) the finger because he cannot have the players he wants.
because most managers worth their salt would want players who will play for the manager and also be players that he (the manager) has indicated that he would want.
where and who in our squad are there any players that Sami has indicated he wants.
2m on Baldock who is a good player who is also a square peg trying to fit into a round hole, bought because he can score goals ..........but not in our system he can't.
this is the trouble when you use people who have never kicked a ball to bring in players, you are right on one score it is p1ss poor recruitment, move that lot sideways, get someone in who knows football, change the assistant manager, temporarily use Mullers until someone younger comes along, use some of the money we have made on selling our best players on a strong young C/F who can bring the forwards we have into play........................if we have to break the bank then so be it ........better that wallowing in div 1

I agree with most of that, but I would go with an experienced Championship manager, someone like Brian McDermott, who I believe would likely hit the ground running. He would be able to quickly identify our shortcomings in terms of tactics/players. The latter in time for the Jan window. We really haven't got time to 'wait' for Sami to sort his p1ss-poor tactics out / get his ideas across to the players (he's had long enough). IMHO putting an old head alongside him is just a poorly thought-out compromise, which will lead to inevitable tension between Sami and the older guy.

 

[Lethargic]

Selling isn't an issue if you already have the replacements either in the squad or already lined up. The best people in the transfer market always sell when they receive offers that were more than the player was worth (in their eyes), but then they usually had replacements in place. We don't appear to do that bit.

Bang on I have no problem with the players sold and the money we have made but we seem to not even start looking for a replacement until the player leaves. Yes I know its complicated and transfers can be very drawn out but why is it out outgoing transfers are always quicker than our incoming transfers. We supposedly monitor players constantly and with our super database we should be on the ball when it comes to replacements. Sammi's whole playing style revolves around having fit wing backs that can get up and down all game and this role is going to take a strain on player physically so you need cover. We have 1 player (J Bennett) capable of playing this role on loan so his style is doomed from day 1.